Well, tough. Whoever puts himself forward to become President is asking to be on call constantly for the next 4 years — every day of the year, around the clock.

"Obama and first lady Michelle Obama made a quick trip to Marine Corps Base Hawaii after a private day exchanging gifts and eating a holiday meal of roast beef at their rented home in Kailua — between briefings on the disrupted plot of suspected terrorism."

Why, exactly, are they in Hawaii — over 5,000 miles* from the White House? I'm not criticizing Obama in particular for going on vacations. I mean to criticize all the Presidents who go far away from Washington. If they need respite, let them go to Camp David. It's close to the White House, and it's set up for security. I can see returning to one's permanent residence, but even that is a luxury the President should eschew. The Christmas Day terror attempt may seem paltry, but it is a reminder of what can happen. And when it does, it would be better if the President were not out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (or even in some schoolhouse in Florida).

***

* I came up with the 5,000 miles figure the way I normally get the miles between 2 places in the U.S.: I put the names of the 2 places into Google maps to get driving directions. What does Google maps do when there is a big ocean in the middle of the drive? Check it out. It's funny.

ADDED: Instapundit thinks it's okay for the Prez, like anybody else, to take "a tropical island trip," as long as he shuts up about carbon emissions. (I'd take that deal too.)
Tigerhawk thinks we ought to cut the Prez some slack because "for him, it is going home." He got to be President via Chicago. He cultivated deep roots in Chicago as a very conscious political scheme. So I'll accept the "home for Christmas" argument if he goes to Chicago.

I don't know why, but this sentence reminds me of Lady Ga-Ga openly admitting how much she sucks, and everyone lavishing her with awards anyway. It seems to be the way now. Say the emperor has no clothes and all people hear is someone's *bravely* going nude.

I guess there's no way to hold the president accountable when no one else is.

I remember people criticizing George Bush for going on vacation for weeks at a time, but I don't remember them criticizing him for going on vacation per se. Did you do that during Bush's presidency Ann? Such a criticism doesn't exactly stick in my mind...

"did Meade get you all wound up today about this topic? You don't sound like yourself."

Either I'm doing the same thing or a different thing. I don't know. The answer to your question is no. I follow the same methods every day looking for stuff to write about and seeing what my response is.

Obama’s military aide told the president about an incident aboard a plane as it was landing in Detroit just after 9 a.m. in Hawaii.

airbrushing of history here.

The plane landed at noon, Detroit time. that is 5 hours difference from Honolulu, making the landing at 7AM Honolulu time. so they didnt wake him up at 0630, but let him sleep in till 9, long after it "landed"

early stories said

A White House official said the incident was an attempted act of terrorism. The FBI is investigating and President Obama, celebrating Christmas in Hawaii, was told of the incident about three hours after the plane landed, officials said.

Does anyone here remember the criticism that his predecessor got when he finished reading that book to the kids after the first plane hit the WTC?

I appreciate President Obama's wish to go back "home" when time permits, and esp. during the holiday season (except that Chicago is really more home than Hawaii). Presidents have been going on vacation as long as I can remember (which goes back at least to Ike, whose SS my father ran into fishing in CO).

But the place I think that he let us down was in not having his people wake him as soon as this happened, and then having them give us reassurances that all was well and his Administration was looking into it more thoroughly.

I will have been on "vacation" for a week now, and have worked two days so far. I will be working today and tomorrow at least. And, I don't have nearly the same sort of pay, benefits, or responsibilities as the President does. As an attorney in a regional law firm, I don't have the luxury to leave my work at work. He is the President, and has far far less excuse for that attitude than I would have. He wasn't elected to be a part time President.

I'm a bit on Obama's side here (though profoundly opposed to his agenda and Chicago style). Given that this was a failed attempt, Obama shouldn't be involved in any decision how to respond -- that's what the TSA structure is for, isn't it?

I sure hope they have standard protocols and procedures to set in place immediately. Ditto FBI and the others.

Obama already has a big problem of getting involved in decisions far below his official management level. IMO it's because he's utterly clueless about how to manage even a small company, so he focuses on lower middle-management stuff, but that's another discussion.

Informing him as part of his morning briefing (which is probably what happened) seems absolutely appropriate in the event.

Whether he understands what happened and finally smartens up about the lager terrorism picture ... remains to be discovered.

"But the place I think that he let us down was in not having his people wake him as soon as this happened, and then having them give us reassurances that all was well and his Administration was looking into it more thoroughly."

Indeed. How dare this president let us down by not telling his aides in advance that someone will attempt to bring a plane down in Detroit, and that he should be woken immediately to hear that the attempt failed and all were safe. He let us down! I long for the days of George Bush's terrorism-fighting omniscience.

Here's a blurb:However, Obama had a political misstep when he was running against incumbent Bobby Rush for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Important gun control legislation was going to be voted on in the state Senate, and a close vote was foreseen. Although Obama supported the bill, he was in Hawaii and decided to stay with his ill daughter instead of returning when the bill was put on the floor.

Without Obama's vote, the bill did not pass, and Rush used Obama's absence against him in his own campaign, saying, "there was no excuse for missing a pivotal vote."

Obama lost the election to Rush but returned to the state Senate and passed 27 pieces of legislation over the next four years.

Indeed. How dare this president let us down by not telling his aides in advance that someone will attempt to bring a plane down in Detroit, and that he should be woken immediately to hear that the attempt failed and all were safe. He let us down! I long for the days of George Bush's terrorism-fighting omniscience.

One of the things that Presidents do (or should do) from the start is set a policy as to what to be woken (or alerted) for, and what not to be. At present, this seems to have been a failed terrorist attack against the U.S. and Americans. I don't consider it micro-managing to have been woken for this.

But, then, I live in a 9/12 world, and the President maybe still living in a 9/10 world, where all it takes to eliminate terrorist attacks against us is signing kumbaya around the fireplace with our enemies.

But seriously. I'm all for technology (I really didn't care if the Clintons were in Little Rock [where was their home base? Not Arkansas, really. Mmmm. Look where they went "home."] or Nixon was in Wherever in CA, or Bush was in Crawford. Those places are set up security and technology wise to operate on a regular basis as outside DC White Houses. And they were within "reach."

A lengthy stay (in a 'rental!') in HI seems a bit of a stretch especially with kids. Isn't Chicago their home? Wouldn't that have let Malia and Sasha keep up with their friends?

Nit picky and "who cares?" but flying back from a personal discretionary location that far in an emergency (kayaks wouldn't cut it) could get a bit dicey.

wv blismaApparently the Obamas celebrated blisma. After having a Che Mao Christmas.

How dare those freedom fighters try to start a man-caused disaster while Bambi is chillin'? This is an extension of the mindset The Zero showed last February when he and Michelle visited a day school and he said something to the effect of, "They let us out for a few hours...".

I can just hear the screaming from the Gray Lady and the WaPo, not to mention Ubermoronn and the usual suspects here if Dubya or Miss Sarah had said such a thing.

AllenS is right about technology, though, it's the time frame between the word going out and his being notified that's at issue. For those who remember Reagan, the Lefties would scream when he wasn't informed of whatever when he was in CA, so it's interesting to see what happens when the shoe is on the left foot.

Pogo said...

...

Insty linked to a NY Post story citing how dissatisfying Obama finds our form of government, when tyrannies clearly make the trains run so much better.

In a similar vein, FDR's acolytes thought wistfully of Hitler and Mussolini, at least until the bullets and ashes started to fill the sky.

Probably after, also, in some cases. This goes back to Woody Wilson, who found the whole idea of the Constitution a drag. Unreconstructed Confederate that he was, it probably came easy to him, but this has been the view of the Democrat Party for a century.

Ann said...

* I came up with the 5,000 miles figure the way I normally get the miles between 2 places in the U.S.: I put the names of the 2 places into Google maps to get driving directions. What does Google maps do when there is a big ocean in the middle of the drive? Check it out. It's funny.

Can just imagine MacArthur's directions from Brisbane to Manila in 1944.

He's President no matter where he's located on what time it is. What I object to is that he seems to chafe at the burdens of office like a boy dressed up in a suit going to church who can't wait to get home and rip into the presents. He certainly enjoys the perks of his office. He should bear his burdens with more dignity.

Bruce your criticism of the president is based on the mere assumption that he issued a directive that he not be disturbed in the event of a foiled terrorist attack. What basis do you have for concluding that he issued such a directive, rather than, for example, concluding that his aides failed to follow a policy to wake him up in the event of an attempted act of terrorism?

You say that you live in a 9/12 world. You evidently do not. On 9/12/01, Americans rallied to the president's side after a terrorist act. The "seven minutes" criticism didn't manifest until much later. It appears that you actually live in a 9/12/04 world, where anything terrorism-related is used to attack and divide the Democrats. The failure of many on the right to give this president ANY benefit of the doubt with anything -- much less terrorism -- is as depressing as it is predictable.

I just think it's funny that Obama, the Democrat, the chastiser of "fat cat" bankers and spreader-of-wealth wanna-be spends his vacations in million-dollar rented homes in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard.While Bush spent his vacations on an eco-friendly rural ranch.

As for 3 am, as best I can remember there were some delays in telling POTUS about North Korea testing its nukes, too. I know it was Robert Gibbs, of all people, who first told him about it.

When was the last time The One spent a night in his Tony Rezko-financed Chicago manse? I thought he was supposed to be our first Urban President.

When a President travels to either Camp David or to his own residence, the Secret Service knows the place, they know the shooting angles, they know the avenues of approach, they know where they can get a cup of coffee when off duty, etc.

When W went to the ranch in Crawford or Nixon went to San Clemente or Ike went to his Gettysburg farm, it was a known commodity and the Secret Service could be prepared. How much effort did they have to expend to get ready for the Obama Christmas Vacation?

He and she feel like they are 'moving on up" and it's their turn at the perks...they are owed them...look for them to continue to push the envelope on this type of stuff...stated another way...no sense of obligation, class, decorum, humility...they belong back in the hood...

When a President travels to either Camp David or to his own residence, the Secret Service knows the place, they know the shooting angles, they know the avenues of approach, they know where they can get a cup of coffee when off duty, etc.

the sensor grid at Camp David or Crawford would boggl the mind. Like all defensive minded soldiers, having more time means you just keep adding layers of security.

"When W went to the ranch in Crawford or Nixon went to San Clemente or Ike went to his Gettysburg farm, it was a known commodity and the Secret Service could be prepared. How much effort did they have to expend to get ready for the Obama Christmas Vacation?"

So this criticism of the president is that it's too hard for the Secret Service to secure a beach house in Hawaii? Only Republican vacation destinations require minimal effort to secure? Evidently, this Democratic president can avoid criticism from some only if he governs and VACATIONS like George W. Bush. Eight years of that was plenty.

Oh get the hell over it. The White House goes where the president goes. In case you have not noticed he is on call 24/7. Even in HI. I have been hearing this crap since LBJ and the argument is just as lazy.

I have read that the first president Bush choose to celebrate Christmas at the White House or Camp David because that would be easier on his staff (particularly Secret Service). In particular, because then his agents could be home for Christmas.

THe story may be apocraphal... but I think it shows a kind of consideration of others that we don't see in the present administration.

My thought is, you wake him up if you need a decision from him. Why wake him up if you don't? Personally, I wonder how he (or any president) sleeps at night anyway; so don't wake him if you don't have to.

And I don't care that he's in Hawaii. That's his home. And it's one of the 50 states.

The person who pointed out he's staying in a rented home--and maybe that creates security complications--may have a point.

Speaking of interrupted vacations, I watched "What about Bob?" on DVD last night for the first time. Is the nation and its troubles being cast in the role of Bob/Bill Murray? If so, it'll take "death therapy" to turn things around.

Aurelian said... Oh get the hell over it. The White House goes where the president goes. In case you have not noticed he is on call 24/7. Even in HI. I have been hearing this crap since LBJ and the argument is just as lazy.

Yep, it's one of the rare times I have noticed Althouse doing a lazy cheap shot.Kind of like the Bush critics asking why he was at a Texas fundraiser instead of personally directing firefighters trying to stop California wildfires or why he hadn't positioned himself in a bunker 24/7 since "a deranged Muslim could strike at any time".

Bearbee said about the same.

And neither side protested when David Petraeus left his field command to do extensive DC briefings...somehow the assumption was that Petraeus was sufficient as a executive leader to leave matters to able subordinates and venture out of his command bunker to do other things.

To be clear-I think wherever the President goes, he is on the job. I don't care whether he is in the White House or in Crawford or in Hawaii.

I do find the optics interesting, though, for this President. The country is in a severe recession and he is arguably the highest-flyer of our recent Presidents.Almost weekly parties at the White House, self-serving flights to Oslo and Copenhagen (complete with multiple costume changes for the First Lady), trips to Hawaii, dinner flights to New York, celebrity guests, weekly golf outings.It is a fantasy existence, when so much of the country is living a financial nightmare.

oh! one more thought about optics-The parties take place amid telling mistakes like misspelled menus, missing invitations to reporters, and security breeches that take place while the woman in charge of the dinners makes sure the cameras catch her in her fabulous gown.

It provides a picture of a White House not doing its t-crossing and i-dotting.

117 is a 2 lane road which is the only connection between Chappaqua nd Mount Kisco in the middle of Westchester County. That's where the Clintons chose to buy their token-buy-the-Senate residence.

Downtown Chappaqua (google it ... it is SMALL) is on a two lane road (120) that tskes a sharp turn in the middle of "downtown" Chappauqa. Of course the Starbucks (think Bill) is located on that corner.

I was so glad my then 88 year old Republican father had moved the previous year. Probably saved him getting interrogated by the Secret Service as he would have tried to drive through town come hell or highwater or Whitewater or Hillandbill or whatever.

There were better, less intrusive solutions to the Clinton's choice too.

But the political rich today, unlike our filthy capitalist forefathers, seem to have little sense of obligation to the serfs.

Nice way to deflect attention from the fact that you never criticized Bush for spending more vacation days than any other president, before or since, at his ranch in Crawford Texas. And this on December 25th of all days.

Without accounting for that glaring fact, this post does not make for credible, objective commentary.

The Islands are a State, but like Alaska have a point of view that sees the USA as a far off place. The Londoners also see us that way and wonder what makes us tick. That is Barry Obama's weakness, or strength to some. He has always studied the USA from that far away and wondered what makes us tick. The fatal defect of course is that unlike Sarah Palin his parents were dedicated to destroying the Arrogant USA instead of protecting the Humble USA. Apparently those formative years up to age 10 are in his cell memory. So let him go back and refresh his old point of view that IS him but has been scrambled up by living up close with the real American Experience of late. Or is that threat that our true enemy is restoring his vision of himself as a USA killing fifth columnist what is irritating us about his trip? If a President Palin went home to Alaska, we would know that she would come back ready to develop our energy resources and strengthen our position in the world, and care for the disabled and elderly. In Obama's case we know that he is planning to do the opposite to us and smile while he does it.

I don't care very much. If anything, the President should spend less time in Washington.

If it's a national security issue, it seems to me that putting the federal government all in one place is dumb. Eventually someone will nuke Washington. I'd support putting the President's permanent residence some distance away.

On a less grim note, it would be nice for the President to see the rest of the country from time to time. Washington is not America. It's a distorted, dysfunctional urban mess.

It's a sign of an incredibly weak mind to lack the capacity for prioritization - or attention to time and place, as Miller never fails to show us. Of course, if we decided to remain as dependent as we are on oil, the implications for Middle Eastern tyranny and terrorism would be nilch, nil, zip, nada. Obama's personal use (as a sign of virtue, mind you) of carbon offsets is the way he proves his seriousness about carbon policy or the war on terror. You see.

Thank goodness we have a president who knows when to fly 5000 miles to take a vacation, especially when it's a week after flying 3000 miles to Kobenhavn to lecture the world about foolish expenditures of fossil fuels to support lavish indulgent lifestyles.

And it gets worse: Bush wasn't even half-black, at least not back then.

From Snopes: (The Bush ranch) "incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape."

Or you could just talk about and make rules about how other people should act. While they inhale your exhaust.

Never fly home to Hawaii to visit your relatives. Not during Christmas, not during New Years. Never.

And oh yeah, don't do what you can to get treaties signed either. If climate change cannot be addressed through personal behaviors and individual choices alone then it cannot be addressed. Period. There is no room for policy on this, just a vague appeal to "virtue" and personal choices - regardless of whether they can be circumvented while you deal with terrorism. The market for energy production, after all, has always and forever been a completely free market exercise, with no interference ever from government, monopolists, or other impediments to "personal choice".

Signed,

"Miller".

(An underemployed artist living in Idaho who feels very knowledgeable [or at least opinionated] about such things).

I may have missed it in the comments here, but my gripe is not the "out-of-touch" critique--because as others have pointed out, modern WH/military comm. keeps any President in touch anywhere. The more interesting observation is the fact that, out of consideration for the secret service and their families at Christmas, Reagan stayed at the White house every Christmas so that they could be with their families. Bush 43 also for the same reasons spent Christmas at Camp David where the security cadre has their families living on site with them. Obama, by contrast, hauled his entire security detail across the Pacific and away for their families for Christmas. The "Rethuglicans" seen as showing REAL concern for the lives of the "little people"; for the Democrat--"Champion of the People"--it's all about "me"--to hell with the "little people."

Harried, overworked president who stayed in Washington out of solidarity for the Senators who were voting on an historic Bill, finds himself being criticised for daring to take a vacation! A VACATION. Who does this blogger think she is, criticising him after he sacrified at least a week of vacation time, after gruelling stops in blizzard-bound Copenhagen and Oslo. "Why, I didn't even have time to sup with the King, I was so busy!". And now these people would begrudge me and my family some down time from the pressures of 1600 Penn Ave??

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he gives off an aura of concern for his own comfort, rather than wanting a rest. Maybe it's a function of being a younger dad and husband than most men are when US Presidents. I'll give him that.

But when a national event like this happens, I ask for a President to make a statement to the public IN PERSON almost immediately. I don't think that's too much to ask, even during a holiday.

OMG, Ann, first the uncalled for snippiness with me in the other thread, now you tear into TCE, one of your best posters...

I can't tell if "Why did you post this again?" means that Crack thinks you are double dipping with the topic, given that we covered Obama's vacation in the comments section on the post below (I doubt he means that). Or more likely for me, the qualifier 'again' is being used to anchor a question colloquially, and he means, "I can't believe you're posting about this, a non-issue."

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he gives off an aura of concern for his own comfort, rather than wanting a rest.

Oh yes. Obama "gives off an aura", now, doesn't he? Like a magician, he prevents conservatives from criticizing his actual actions. They are now forced to criticize his "aura". So mystical.

And I see this incredibly intelligent point about how "rest" and "comfort" are not related to each other! They are just completely different things.

As for what Obama thinks of this blog entry, you can't flatter yourself or your matron this easily! It's not like this place has reached Fox Noise's caliber of reach. Sorry! VB will have to learn more about the actual composition of American media before she can be sent out as the next footsoldier in the conservative war against the American media - that liberal propaganda machine with only a few, small oases of sanity - such as FOX and Pajamas, etc.

Notice how modern liberals attack people for: disagreeing, presenting facts, being republican, well just about anything. Even when they are occasional making a lucid point, there is the irresistible urge to attack the person gratuitously thrown in.

Now why would I not want such people and their thinking controlling my government and my life. I'm sure they would be very "compassionate".

We are not so compassionate as to offer our testicles for terrorists, Bag 'O (as you are - BTW, sounds like a government program: Cash for Clunkers, Testicles for Terrorists). But isn't that the kind of ferocity you want when going after a terrorist? Especially when you have no compunction about castrating him?

I am compassionate enough to let you know why I think you're wrong. Only a select few are so wrong here that I get a kick out of making complete parodies of their entire approach. Miller is one. (He's also one of the most closed-minded, which is another mitigating factor). And Vic just said some really funny things. It was too difficult to avoid!

It's like Dana Carvey said. Some things are just so funny that even a comedian couldn't write them. Like Bush's use of the phrase "evildoers". I'll send the YouTube link if you'd like a demonstration of what he's talking about.

This conservative who did not and will not vote for Obama thinks this is the one if the most specious posts Ann has made in the last 5 years.

Aye. It's another "Let's look at those boobs again" or "Is that a suspicious earpiece Obama is wearing during a debate?". It lends credence to people saying that Ann posts for the blog hits, for the notoriety, whether or not she actually believes in what she wrote.

Chase misses the point entirely as far as I'm concerned. True enough, just by the technical details of a President's job description alone as both Head of State and Head of Government he could stay awake working ceaselessly 27/7/365 X 4yrs and not attend to everything he is technically charged with. So golf-course time hardly matters--for ANY President. What this incident DOES spotlight, however is that aspect of Obama's Presidency--the IMPERIAL aspect--a word that seems only to be tossed around when discussion Republican Presidents. To repeat my earlier point which seems to have gone right over chase's head, his Hawaiian trip well demonstrating his total disregard for the lives of his support staff at Christmas-time--unlike his predecessors. And the narcissistic, uncaring attitude such actions so well demonstrate--as compared to Presidents representing a party liberal "progressives" never tire of slandering as "uncaring" when it comes to "the little people" and of said party adherents living like 'fat cats" to use Obama's own words.

Whose living like an "uncaring," "fat-cat" out in Hawaii now? And largely at "little-people" tax-payer expense....

And, again MUL you prove my point - you just can't resist it. But, it's OK, you have many like minded comrades. You do understand though that the leftist need to destroy always leads to eating their own, so watch your back. Your friends are coming for you next.

Oh, and for all the folks poo-pooing the subject matter as trivial - the major difference I see here is that while W had the comms and infrastructure necessary to support a chief executive laid in/semi-permanently available in Crawford (or Kennebunkport, ftm), we see Skippy running off to a holiday rental -

True, the Presidency isn't a 9-5 job based on a fixed location, and it is a high stress position - and I guess I'm not really begrudging Skippy a bit of decompress time, but the lag notifying him of the airliner event makes the few minutes that W spent not alarming some schoolkids while information was verified in a (at the time) unique situation to be as truly trivial as it actually was.

Skippy comes off in this episode not unlike Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard - "handle it, handle it" - but for someone who lives in an idealistic fantasy world, not surprising.

What point? That only liberals have a sense of humor? Many of your conservatives here have as much a sense of humor -- sometimes I just find it a bit inappropriately placed. But I don't worry about the hard left. They cave more easily than a terrorist without testicles or a castrated conservative.

Sometimes ridicule goes over the top but come on, Bag 'O. Surely there is a place within yourself that can tolerate humor, and differentiate it from ridicule for its own sake. Or maybe I assume too much.

To expand on my previous analysis - the numbers I cited were for one person presumably traveling commercial. So, let's add in the cost of everyone else and keep it very low for the sake of the analysis. If we figure 15 people travel - the 5 family members plus 10 staff/secret service - we get a total of 56k lbs or 25 Metric Tons of CO2. That's more than the average US Citizen emits in a year (avg: 20 tons) and 6x the average per person avg of 4 Metric Tons globally.

The trip for 15 to Chicago is ~4 metric tons or 14% of the trip to Honolulu. The trip for 15 to Camp David is 6/10ths of a metric ton or 2% of the trip to Honolulu.

When the people who keep screaming about global warming really act like it's a crisis, I will stand up and pay attention. Until then, they can all stfu as far as I'm concerned.

The site: http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/index.html#air

Well, let me point out that the head of the UN IPCC ran around for months if not years proclaiming that all of the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains would be gone by 2035 because he was CITING A TYPO and could not get out of his own way to declare the destruction of the world. The report actually cited 2350 as the year by which 10,000 glaciers would be gone.

When you can't argue facts, make shit up and stand behind it. That's the Progressive way. The Precautionary Principle and all that.

Either carbon footprints are a big deal for EVERYONE or they are not. You cannot pick and choose. Give Obama his beach - South Florida is beautiful this time of year. There's no reason he couldn't stay on the east coast.

See, this is the problem with the right nowadays. They don't understand that risk comes in degrees. That people prioritize for what is a greater threat and what is less of a threat. What can be addressed in the long-term, versus the short-term. What takes a long haul to approach and what doesn't.

In Rialby's mind (or lack thereof) something is either a crisis, or it is not. No grades of crisis. It either requires all things to be put on hold or it's not worth considering. No timeline for when something is is already presenting more of an unmanageable problem or less of one.

But then again, is anyone surprised? The guy works in marketing and dresses himself up in a Don Draper avatar. With a Matt Druge-style hat. He's a sales guy. Doesn't even work in management - (another part of the business clique that has shamed itself into irrelevance).

b. "MUL" is shorthand for "Montana Urban Legend," the former name of the poster who went by "Brasilian Samba Rhythm" until he changed his name again to "Ritmo Brasilero." No one understands why he changes his name so frequently nor does anyone really understand his posts, but feel free to scroll right by what he posts. He probably uses an automatic phrase-making utility. You can invoke his auto-phrase-making by simply saying things like "CRU lied about the data" or "the Siberian tree rings show there is no global warming." It's almost fun to watch - like watching a clown car crash.

Let me explain my argument so that you don't have to. If Climate Change nee Global Warming is truly happening AND humans are causing it AND it will cause irreparable damage to the planet AND humans can do something to mitigate the damaging effects of it AND those measures will benefit us more than they cost us, then we should do something.

That said, it is Obama who told us that he would stop the oceans from rising. Flying to Hawaii for a vacation is hypocrisy and, as we all know, there is no greater sin to the Left than hypocrisy.

The point is that you only know about image and numbers that go up or down. Nothing else. You have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding how to consider two things at once, two things that work on different time-lines, or any other variable that detracts from presenting an either-or mentality.

You aren't even mid-level management material. Enjoy your station and hopefully this holiday season will allow you something (however meager) to show for it.

Oh, and one of the people who used to post here quite a bit was "Jeremy," aka "Michael," "Lucky Oldson," and "Gene Olson." He has been around much since Obama started dropping in the polls much like a lemming going over a precipice.

By the way, "precipice" is an unfortunate word to use for how the Senate Democrats ran after Reid. Brings in unfortunate images of lemmings jumping over a precipice.

Miller: Thanks - I had totally missed the fact that this was MUL whom I've argued with before and found to be a complete timewaster. He's the master of ad hominem attacks due to his narcissistic personality disorder.

Obama flying to Hawaii for vacation while simultaneously berating us serfs for our wasteful carbon-releasing habits is like a drunk lecturing us about the evils of our consumption of alcohol whilst he powers down a few stiff shots of bourbon.

Rialby, I generally miss MUL's postage because I have a kill file set up for his stuff & just delete it unread.

He's the equivalent of an auto-responder on an e-mail client initiated by a few trigger words.

Almost amusing it is to consider what he does for a living. I hope it doesn't involve any critical decisions for other people. He might be that guy that tells you you can increase your productivity at work if you stop work entirely.

But funnier than all that is the self-righteousness of the Obamas telling us all we can't keep driving our SUVs and keep our houses at 72 -- all the while taking a private 767 to Hawaii so they can relax on the beach whilst the rest of the country hunkers down in a blizzard.

The fact that you need to devote this much attention to what I say (without actually showing any capacity to read it - or anything else) shows how easily distracted you are. And how poor your capacity to comment on anything substantively.

By constantly pointing out what you have the inability to disregard, you are making a comment about yourself, Miller.

Artificial intelligence won't come soon enough for Miller. Unfortunately for him, it will just reinforce the things we already knew about him, the things those of us who can think could already do for ourselves, and prove him to be wrong about what he deluded himself into thinking he was right about all this time.

Sorry, Ann; while I have no respect for Obama, he doesn't need to be in the White House to be president. Air Force One has as good a communications capability as the White House itself does. And for Obama, Hawaii is just "going home" to one of the places he was raised.

I think Glenn Reynolds is on safer ground; anybody who wants to lecture on "carbon footprints" needs to lose the airplane and learn to use Skype....

No, we get that terrorism is no biggie for you, as long as it happens to someone else. Screw the people on the ground in Detroit, yes?

Do you get to provide any evidence for this? Or is it just enough to assume that Obama was told of the flight and said, "screw the plane!" How many times did you have to watch the movie Airplane to come to think this way? Or better yet, how many minutes did you spend reading My Pet Goat before you decided that Obama doesn't respond adequately to crises?

We get that The One need to take his detail to Hawaii, away from their families on Christmas, so he can get some good photo ops in the surf.

More focus on how Obama's image is better than Bush. I know, I know, I get the script. That really gets under your skin, doesn't it? God help you when he does something even close to being like what Bush did with the whole "Mission Accomplished" moment.

We get that, for the Left, vacations were "bad" when Bush took them. But, as usual, they hold their own to a much lower standard.

What lower standard? That Obama took more vacation days than Bush? That didn't happen now, did it? Did you even read the link, or even the damn excerpt? 40% of Bush's time was spent on vacation. How does that compare to time off for Obama? Or are you just trying to prove my point about Republicans being incapable of doing math and quantifying things? You are, aren't you! You sneaky little devil, you!

And we get that while The Little People are under attack while flying Christmas day, The One needed his beauty sleep.

A few days a year probably goes moreso to meeting the basic physiological needs of life than it does to Obama's beauty. But I get it. Your mind is fixated by the things that make you jealous.

The right has really become this immature and transparent in what gets under their skin, haven't they? Obama's too pretty? Oh dear. They can't take it! Perhaps the GOP leader will have to be a former beauty queen. Oh wait...

His sister, Dr. Maya Soetero-Ng and her husband, Konrad Ng (and their kids, of course).

Look, Obama is from Hawaii. If he had gone gallavanting to Tahiti, maybe there would be a point to be made -- but it would be like Palin being President, and being criticised for taking vacations ALLLL the way in Alaska. That's silly.

So this criticism of the president is that it's too hard for the Secret Service to secure a beach house in Hawaii? Only Republican vacation destinations require minimal effort to secure? Evidently, this Democratic president can avoid criticism from some only if he governs and VACATIONS like George W. Bush. Eight years of that was plenty.

I could just as easily have said JFK in Hyannisport or Jimmy Carter in Plains.

Though I have come to believe that Jimmy Carter is mean, semi-senile, has-been (and I voted for him twice out of youthful stupidity), he did have a sense of place. I don't perceive any sense of place in Obama and it could have been due to his rootless childhood. That is a shame.

I still stand by my comment that defending a consistent known location is easier for the Secret Service than an ever-changing vacation location.

In Rialby's mind (or lack thereof) something is either a crisis, or it is not.

So IS AGW a crisis? Or is it not?

Or, more to the point, is it only a crisis for some (us little people) who are to be told what cars to drive, how warm/cold to keep their homes, that our pets should all die, what kind of light bulbs to use, what to wear, what to eat, how long we should be allowed to live, etc etc etc...all for the good of Gaia.

While is somehow NOT a crisis for others like Obama and his entourage. The Soros and others of the world who want talk the talk, but do not want to walk the walk.Either it is a crisis for all or it is a crisis for none.

Personally, I think the whole thing is one giant crock of bullshit. A fabricated crisis to seize even more control over our lives and bleed us dry of money to support the overweening State complex.

I certainly don't begrudge the President and his family a vacation. Everyone needs to get some time off. You work better and focus better when you have had some down time.

The issue I believe is the hypocrisy of telling the rest of us to eat dirt, while they have multitudes of very very expensive parties, date nights at the tax payer's expense. Screaming at us that the economy is collapsing, we are on the verge of the next great depression, the very breath we exhale is killing the planet.... and all the while spending or tax money like a bunch of drunken sailors on frivolities.

Either it IS a crisis or it is not a crisis.

However, we HAVE been told by Obama's mentors and sidekicks that they never want to let a good crisis to go to waste. Even if they have to manufacture the crisis in the first place.

Hey DBQ! Merry Christmas! I sure will be happy when the regulars come back after the hols, as I miss people like you posting daily.

A fabricated crisis to seize even more control over our lives and bleed us dry of money to support the overweening State complex.

The laser vision the Left had with the Bushisms like "Iraq is seeking uranium in Africa" fail them when its their own side trying to pull the wool over our eyes. That's what I can't forgive, since they control media, and if they don't investigate, citing like the NYT that they are not "experts" on the topic, it won't be challenged.

seems to me that the president of the United States is ALWAYS in point to point communication with anyone any where in the world. The President is NEVER away from his communications gear.

So while I am not a big fan of President Obama, he is in contact with breaking events--just like George Bush was in contact with breaking events in Crawford.

I swear--the idiots that talk about vacations, simply do not understand the technology that links ANY president any where in the world--

So you guys can shit your pants about vacations all you want, that isnt the issue

the issue in this particular case is how some jihadi got on a plane and was almost able to blow it up--that is Obamas fault--But I do hope we hear from Janet Napolitano since clearly this nigerian dude was not some sort of arayan supremacist that the DHS secretary told us was the BIG threat to peace and security--the world awaits Ms Napolitano's assessment.

This site is filled with irrational haters following a moron (the author).

Barack Obama is from Hawaii! His sister lives there! He's not allowed to visit his family over Christmas? Bush lived in Crawford Texas for the entire month of August during his presidency. You are all hypocrites.

The only presidential involvement in this issue is a simple decision of whether or not to use enhanced interrogation techniques on the terrorist.

Exactly. And since Obama is nothing if not a standard lefty we know that he won't order that enhanced interrogation techniques, aka torture, be used. Despite the very real possibility that this attempt to bring down the plane over Detroit may be just one of several such attempts in the coming days or weeks and this terrorist might, just might have information vital to thwarting the rest of the operation. It takes an incident like this to bring into high relief just how suicidal the Left's absolutism on this issue is for our security.

His (half) sister lives there! He's not allowed to visit his family over Christmas?

His half brother(s) live in Africa and China. Should we expect him to spend Christmas there too in future years? He has in illegal alien Aunt in Baltimore (I think). Christmas in Baltimore probably wouldn't be as much fun as Hawaii.

Actually, I have no problem with the President visiting family in Hawaii. I have a problem with him scolding us all, as if we are a bunch of children because we don't adhere to the AGW creed and don't wear the sack cloth and ashes of proper global warming penitents.....WHILE he and his gigantic group of hanger's on and subservient lackeys are jetting all over the freaking world. ON MY DIME no less.

Taking a vacation is not an issue. The gross hypocrisy of this administration IS the issue.

I mean to criticize all the Presidents who go far away from Washington.

Althouse's criticism of W's constant tripping to Crawford:

3. Nice recognition:

[I]n case you're not following high school football in Texas ... the Crawford Pirates are the state 2-A, Division 2, champs. And we look forward, don't we, to wave the championship banner above the Crawford High School.

Mebbe if Obama says something nice about the Aiea Angels (or something) Althouse will change her point of view.

Random Obama gripes (anti-Obamaiana tag?):

Obama being mean to the Secret Service compared to St. Ronald O'Reagan:

Reagan celebrated Thanksgivings with his family at Rancho Del Cielo. OK for the Secret Service to suck it up on Turkey Day?

W. used to split for Crawford right after Christmas till New Year's, leaving little time for the Secret Service to take their kids out on their new bikes or sleds, or even to play Hungry Hungry Hippo.

W. was really working the whole time on his Crawford ranch, which was a command and control center:

While this may be true, W. spent more time each year at his dad's place in Kennebunkport than Obama will have in Hawaii.

I guess the only solution is for the American people to buy Obama a ranch, in Texas (OK for Bush) or California (OK for St. Ron).

Obama screwed up Oahu's traffic:

The day before Christmas Eve, it took a friend of mine a solid hour to drive 4 miles in a route past Pearlridge shopping center. Traffic sucks in that part of Oahu, period.

Why is my being the first and most consistent one to point out the numerous flaws in both this post, and a select few comments agreeing with it, evidence of irrational Obama love? I was hardly the only one here to draw attention to how ridiculous the post was. It was hardly just a bunch of "left-wingers" pointing out how ridiculous this sad attempt at criticism was.

By all means, if anyone's got substantive and newsworthy criticism of Obama, fire away. If anyone's got substantive comment about how Obama merits criticism as pointed as what was directed at Bush, go for it. If all you've got is propaganda and bile, though...

Many apologies for my humble attempt to merely raise the bar on the low standards for our political discourse.

I don't know. Does running through red lights with flashing sirens contribute to a crisis or does it not? Because last time I checked, presidential entourages (and other foreign leaders) get to do that, too. But then again, so do fire engines, paramedics, etc., etc., etc. Any contributions to traffic accident mortality be damned! How dare those bastards make themselves above the law!

Really, some people need to get a grip. AGW isn't just a personal thing done to annoy you and make you feel small and neither was it intended as such when Arrhenius found out that CO2 retains heat over a hundred years ago.

Fuckin' tyrant! Arrhenius! Damn it! How dare you conduct experiments without polling political constituencies in other countries hundreds of years later regarding how they feel about the results! Motherfucker!

Any kerfuffle over how far away from DC the POTUS happens to be is a distraction from the metamorphosis of the USA that is taking place. We're becoming a one-party socialist system (at best) in place of a Constitutional Republic and we concern ourselves over an Hawaiian Vacation?

I really don't understand the mindset behind this. If AGW contributes to ocean levels rising enough to swamp island states in Micronesia, that's certainly a crisis for them. And as signatories to international treaties, they get to invoke the moral suasion of those treaties and other organizations to make sure countries contributing to it take it seriously and address it with the seriousness that they have every right to take it.

So yes, it's something that would involve collective action. But this emphasis on equivocating between collective action and equal contribution gets a bit silly. If it's determined, for instance, that a 50% reduction in emissions would abate the effects that other countries (and perhaps eventually, all countries) are seeing, why is this supposed to mean that everyone reduces their emissions equally? If someone can contribute a greater reduction than others, what is wrong with that? That's what carbon trading credits were all about. Why do we assume that a reduction for one industry, for one organization, for one person, would create the same degree of hardship or "burden" as it would for everyone else? In short, what is wrong with applying basic principles of economics to dealing with negative externalities? If one group has an easier time forgoing carbon emissions, fine. Let them get a greater economic reward for it. What on earth is wrong with that?

I suspect you know the answer. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with that and that the ridiculous buzzing about "totalitarianism" makes for better political fodder while refusing to take seriously a potential, unresolved problem that so many others have every right to take seriously.

why is this supposed to mean that everyone reduces their emissions equally?

Why NOT. Are some people more equal than others? Do you consider that some segments of society should suffer more, be deprived more so that other segments can live like royalty. I believe that this mindset of entitlement has started many revolutions.

If someone can contribute a greater reduction than others, what is wrong with that?

Contribute? The operating mechanism in this AGW scam isn't voluntary contributions. It is forcing some people to give up, scale back, reduce their quality of living so that others can continue to live the high life as usual. Or they can buy "indulgences" from the high priests of AGW.

That's what carbon trading credits were all about

Hardly. Carbon trading credits serve the exact same purpose as buying indulgences from the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. The sinners can continue to sin. Those who can afford to pay "bacsheese" can buy absolution. The rest of the poor peasants and serfs have to suffer. They are forced to their knees in the cold church on the hard stone floor. Meanwhile the rich...they just pay off a few shekkles or carbon credits to get out of any reduction in their sinful life styles.

Either is it a crisis....or it is a sin....or it isn't.

You can't pay your way into Heaven if you truly believe in sin and you can't buy carbon credits to save the world if you truly believe in AGW.

You can't have it both ways unless you are a complete hypocrite.

As you know, I think the whole AGW thing is a complete crock. That doesn't excuse people who say that they believe from hypocrisy or profiting from this sham.

If you believe then act like it and hold our so called leaders to the same standards that they want to impose on the rest of us.

I'm going to say that I really don't get this additional equivocation, between indulgences and power. Religious history and current reality and what science can tell us about it.

Why NOT. Are some people more equal than others? Do you consider that some segments of society should suffer more, be deprived more so that other segments can live like royalty. I believe that this mindset of entitlement has started many revolutions.

I'm sorry Bunny. You know I love ya, and you give me interesting things to think about from time to time. But this is the richest piece of garbage I can hear uttered out of the mouth of a professed capitalist/non-socialist. Economically, some people are better off than others. Economically, we are not equal. Economically, some of us make more money than others, have more capital, can contribute more to the perpetuation of economic conditions, and that's the way it is and will remain for a large part of the foreseeable future. The only difference is, I'm willing to apply that fact to the problem of negative externalities. Whereas you, for some really, really bad reason, aren't.

You know full well that none of us are equal when it comes to how we can contribute to our own financial enrichment or those of others, but yet you refuse to accept that the same inequality applies to how we contribute to the problems we cause for others: To negative externalities.

Only issue is, that the left accepts that the former won't lead to any silly revolution of the sort you seem stuck on, while you and a few other voices on the right seem to think that the latter will.

It won't. There are enough sane, responsible people out there on either side of the political divide to realize and accept the difference between an equitable contribution to solving a problem and an inequitable one. And they understand that those harping on such non-sequiturs as shekels and indulgences aren't taking the conversation regarding that difference seriously.

Your piece amounts to protesting that someone who can pay a large fine that they are levied for breaking a law is being treated less fairly than people less capable of affording that fine. It's absolutely ridiculous. We might as well strip our municipal, state and federal governments of the power to issue fees and fines! It will lead to revolution if we don't, no less! Remember the Alamo!!! Yipee Kay-Yay!!!

But this is the richest piece of garbage I can hear uttered out of the mouth of a professed capitalist/non-socialist

As I said. This AGW crap is just that....crap. And of course I don't believe that economically all people are the same.

As you said:

"Economically, some people are better off than others. Economically, we are not equal. Economically, some of us make more money than others, have more capital, can contribute more to the perpetuation of economic conditions, and that's the way it is and will remain for a large part of the foreseeable future"

I'm just trying to get YOU to see and actually acknowledge the rank stinking hypocrisy of the AGW movement by exposing that YOU ALSO don't believe in equal outcomes or equal suffering of all people in the foolish quest of AGW carbon dioxide reductions.

Face it. You do think that some people are more equal than others. That some people have the "God given right" to be superior and use more resources or buy carbon credits or be forgiven their "sins" because they have the means.

The idea that you can level the entire world to a certain amount of CO2 or level the entire US to an equal amount of health care by fiat or that you can level incomes by taxing the living shit out of the people who produce: is at diametric odds to what you just stated about economic equality.

The fact that you can express these contradictory ideas and at the same time express the ridiculous mantra of AGW....it is a surprise to me that your head doesn't explode.

A few months ago, I got a parking ticket for an amount that I considered exorbitant. For a reason that I considered ridiculous. I didn't pay it. The amount then went up.

But I protested. I got together all of the people too poor to afford cars, everyone riding buses in the city, and encouraged them to revolt. Why, that's outrageous, we all said! There is no way our government is going to get away with that.

We went out, overturned some cars, burned property, looted, and made our point.

What that point was, who knows? All I know is that it seems to fit the sort of revolutionary script that Bunny is excited by.

(The above was all a parody. It didn't happen and won't happen. Nor will it happen with carbon trading credits. And if we go to mandatory caps on everyone across the board, or the idea of a carbon tax - preferred by Andrew Sullivan and about as equitable as you can get, you can bet your bottom dollar that DBQ will find just as unserious a reason for declaring it tyrannical. It might not involve revolution, but something just as far-fetched).

Yeah, but wasn't Obama critical of Bush for staying on the beach? Does anyone remember Obama saying this last year during the campaign? "My Kennebunkport is the south side of Chicago." He made it sound like he'd be staying in Chicago on breaks as a way to keep in touch with us little people.

Plus, I guess I'm just one big kid, but, if it was MY first year in the White House, I'd be looking forward to spending my first Christmas there, especially with the kids. I'd have invited the whole family over! But, I guess when you're a millionaire and used to staying on million dollar estates, the White House is no big deal.

Face it. You do think that some people are more equal than others. That some people have the "God given right" to be superior and use more resources or buy carbon credits or be forgiven their "sins" because they have the means.

I believe I clarified my stance on this little conundrum for you with the anecdote about running red lights. I don't think the president, or cops, or ambulances, or fire trucks should be charged with anything for running red lights in an emergency. So yes, some people are more "equal" than others. If you disagree, I'd like to see you petitioning the government against allowing such privileges (or as you call them, "indulgences") on the part of emergency services RIGHT NOW. Anything less will amount to tyranny.

And yes, the American president gets to fly planes also until the superior technology is invented and feasible.

The idea that you can level the entire world to a certain amount of CO2 or level the entire US to an equal amount of health care by fiat or that you can level incomes by taxing the living shit out of the people who produce: is at diametric odds to what you just stated about economic equality.

I think I stated something about economic inequality.

The fact that you can express these contradictory ideas and at the same time express the ridiculous mantra of AGW....it is a surprise to me that your head doesn't explode.

No risk of explosion here. I'm also not confusing the number of facts with an unfounded accusation that they are contradictory. Different? Yes. Contradictory? No.

My whole problem is that when a terrorist attack is happening, the president should be made aware right away and should be the one broadcasting about it. That duty is not something he should be able to sign away. He may not have to do anything else but he is the one who speaks for the country and he is also the one who should be telling the country what is going on. He loves to lecture us all so much of the time, why not in this case.

I'd be looking forward to spending my first Christmas there, especially with the kids.

Sydney, he and the missus do not celebrate Christmas, at least not like the rest of us. There's no once-a-year trip to church. There are no presents (except when they're shamed into giving them, after the brouhaha last year when they admitted they didn't give each other Christmas gifts). There's no Christmassy spirit exuded at all by these two people.

IOW, they behave like any non-religious members of the academic haute bourgeoisie. Christmas is just a chance to relax for a couple of days and not anything more.

Dubya never took vacations from the pressures of the presidency. He took vacations from D.C. The Western WH, as his home in Crawford was dubbed by the press, had everything Dubya needed to manage American affairs away from D.C. Obama goes to Hawaii and he has to travel to a military base to be brought up to speed. Meantime, he's living large (his family and friends, too) on the taxpayer's dime while being clearly unwilling to do the taxpayer's business. Why didn't he go back to Chicago for Christmas? He's got a house there; it would cost taxpayers nothing (but one-time security costs which are likely to have already been spent), and he could put up his guests without the American people paying the bill for it. If Crawford was good enough for Dubya, then Chicago ought to b good enough for Obama. I can just see it: that schmuck is going to retire to Hawaii and we'll have to pay for his extravagant lifestyle for the rest of his miserable America-hating life!

Ritmo B said: "Your piece amounts to protesting that someone who can pay a large fine that they are levied for breaking a law is being treated less fairly than people less capable of affording that fine. It's absolutely ridiculous. We might as well strip our municipal, state and federal governments of the power to issue fees and fines!"

So...the fine for running a red light should be based on one's ability to pay? There's a certain superficial appeal to such a position, but what it does is move from an objective standard to a subjective one. It's all what the judge thinks you ought to pay, based on his own views about your station in life, & whether you should really be spending your money on that Lexus. And at that point, there is no law.

My whole problem is that when a terrorist attack is happening, the president should be made aware right away and should be the one broadcasting about it.

As far as I have been able to verify, Obama reacted the same way as W. did, when -- less than three months after 9/11 -- a terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas. W. enjoyed his (Camp David) holiday unperturbed.

So I'll accept the "home for Christmas" argument if he goes to Chicago.

Obama called. He can't accept Althouse's cross-country trip to Albany just for Thanksgiving. They have turkey in Madison, he pointed out. Neither Althouse nor Meade have residences there, nor were they born there.

The trees Meade planted will offset the conspicuous carbon emissions somewhat, but still more compensation will be required.

Because as it stands, I'm imagining something more along the lines of the sort of sham trial conducted by the Queen of Hearts.

A revolution, no less. A revolution! You know, like the one that the French and the Soviets and the colonists had. A fucking military coup. Violence, blood, and all sorts of other fun stuff envisaged by someone who, last week, demonstrated that she doesn't understand the presumption of innocence before guilt, the concept of trial by jury, Article Three and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other basic standards of human rights and American constitutional law. A person who proclaimed, upon condoning vengeance and retaliation as strategies for maintaining order, "there is no rule of law in many places".

Yep, that's the kind of social and historical ignoramus (and violent sociopath) I want determining what constitutes a sense of proportion and the standards for logical argumentation skills. Yep.

Well, I got news for you. Most Americans know their history better than that. They know what happens to violent, unrestrained, self-proclaimed "revolutionaries". It's not pretty. But if you want to give yourself the nickname Jean-Paul Marat, I wouldn't object. Maybe it'll give you a much needed sense of perspective, if not that "sense of proportion" that you're longing for.

I think I know why you really quit debating. You quit debating because you knew you would expose your real position as one being held to by an absolute loon, and one that couldn't be redeemed except by starting over from scratch with an actual, sensible point of argumentation. One that isn't as ignorant and wild-eyed as every other position you've taken in these last fourteen mini-manifestos you've posted on Althouse. Manifestos that alternate between themes of violence, support for authoritarianism and a contempt for the will of the people. And a disdain for scientific knowledge. Best not to forget that part, too.

Never a smart position - or combination of positions, as the case were - to take.

I see that obama's toadies are out in force. Have to but but but Bush to cover for their messiah who cares so much about the 10.5 percent unemployed that he flew to Hawaii. Thinks that average Americans consume too much but it's all right for the narcissist and his family to consume 1,000 times more. Someone who is opposed to school vouchers and thinks public schools and their unionized teachers are great... for other peoples' children that is. Do as I say, not as I do but that's your standard issued leftist, anti-American prick for you.

Chicago is impractical at this time of year. Who goes to Chicago for the holidays? Hawaii, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

Besides, I have no idea what the president actually DOES on a day to day basis. Then again, I don't know what my boss does on a day to day basis either.

I'm pretty convinced it's like any other gov job. You work your ass off to go in and do your best to convince the boss to make the right decision. Boss always wants to make the wrong decision. Why is that? Interesting topic...

Of course the president should be doing his best to promote fear in the American people, the way the last one did. Cancel your plans, America! Cancel everything!

He should have immediately flown back to DC, since there's no way he could be briefed in Hawaii, or issue orders. That's why he should cancel foreign trips as well. What would have happened if he'd been in Russia or something?

@DBQ: "Well, almost exactly .....except one of them was in front of a bunch of small children who could be frightened by the disaster of 9-11 and adults freaking out...."This ought to embarrass you even to type. Script for clueless W: "Kids, I have to go to work now, but I'll come back, I promise. When you get home, hug your parents. Bye-bye!"

"And the other one was sound asleep and had put out the "do not disturb" sign so his paid subordinates wouldn't wakey wakey him too early."

From the Assertion Makes It So school of research. Get most of your stuff there?

You might want to get your historical facts correct before posting something so wrong as this: “FDR’s acolytes thought wistfully of Hitler and Mussolini, at least until the bullets and ashes started to fill the sky.” In what alternate universe did this take place? Or have you conveniently ignored it because of your own political affiliations? It was the conservatives of the 1930s who thought Hitler and Mussolini were swell guys with whom America could do business.

Yet we are not quite done in the memory lapse department. It was those same conservatives who were so outraged that FDR dare enforce legislation preventing them from ripping off the American people (sound familiar?) that these upstanding business men enacted a coup against the president of the US and our own government and were it not for one of the military generals who blew the whistle on them we could very well be living under the conservative corporate wet dream: fascism.

And as a sidenote, Ann, are you aware Bush took more vacations than any president in the history of this country? Did you ever criticize him for that? Not to mention, this beloved vacation President actually had a preference for dictatorships, if you recall.

And btw that article you quoted from the Post by Hurt? Hurt doesn’t quote President Obama saying anything bad about our great Republic. The President was discussing the current malfunction in the Senate, which is a genuine concern outside of conservative right wing thinking.

And what's up with that poster that called Coolidge the greatest president in American history? OMG!!! Coolidge let the country rot and prepared the way for the Great Depression. What kind of bizarro world do you and your readers live in? If it’s true that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, we’re in trouble.